Perfvwaybelayouix v. Graham-Drake
| Decision Date | 01 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 22-1019 (CKK) |
| Parties | MICHELDEANGELOU PERFVWAYBELAYOUIX, Plaintiff v. AUBREY GRAHAM-DRAKE, et al., Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiff Micheldeangelou Perfvwaybelayouix (“Plaintiff”) proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in this case against Defendants Aubrey Graham, Universal Music Group (“UMG”), Republic Records, and OVO (together “Defendants”) alleging copyright infringement of his song “Reach for the Skies.” See Compl. at 1-2. Defendants filed the pending [43] Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b)(6) and 8 or alternatively, for Summary Judgment under Rule 56. Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to allege plausibly any required element of a copyright infringement claim: ownership of a valid copyright, Defendants' access to Plaintiff's song, and substantial similarity between Plaintiff's song and Defendants' song. Defs.' Mot. at 1. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff failed to allege facts to put each Defendant on notice of the claims levied against them. Id. at 14. Finally, Defendants assert that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice in light of Plaintiff's inappropriate communications with both Defendants' counsels and this Court. Id. at 16.
Upon consideration of the pleadings,[1] the relevant legal authorities, and the record for purposes of this motion, the Court finds that while Plaintiff does allege ownership of a valid copyright, he does not allege facts to show Defendants' access to Plaintiff's song nor substantial similarity. The Court also finds that Plaintiff did not provide sufficient notice to Defendants to satisfy Rule 8. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 8 and, as additional grounds, DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Complaint as a sanction for Plaintiff's repeated misconduct.
For the purposes of the motion before the Court, the Court accepts as true the well-pleaded allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court does “not accept as true, however, the plaintiff's legal conclusions or inferences that are unsupported by the facts alleged.” Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in U.S., 758 F.3d 296, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
On April 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a three-page Complaint stating that he was “suing for intentional copyright infringement over the song, ‘Way 2 Sexy' by Drake featuring Future & Young Thug.” Compl. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that he had “evident proof of intentional copyright infringement & will provide evident proof upon hearing.” Id. Plaintiff alleges he had “a registered form of lyric” and that the song “Way 2 Sexy” “would not be a song created... if not been for my dealings with its music label.” Id. The dealings to which Plaintiff refers are the uploading of his song “Reach for the Skies” to the website Spinnup. See id. at 2; Pl.'s Mot. at 2 (describing Spinnup), 4 (screenshot from Spinnup), 5-7 (screenshots of emails between Plaintiff and Spinnup), 11 (referencing “[t]he service Spinnup of UMG”). Spinnup is an Internet platform owned by Defendant UMG. See Spinnup, Universal Music Group, https://www.universalmusic.com/label/spinnup/ ( ). As Defendants explain, “[w]hile Spinnup is now available only to artists via invitation, UMG previously allowed anyone to upload music to the platform.” Defs.' Mot. at 2 n.2.
On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Ruling, in which Plaintiff provided the lyrics to “Reach for the Skies” and “Way 2 Sexy” with various words and phrases emphasized in italics, underline, bold, and different color font. Pl.'s Mot. at 8-10. In this motion, Plaintiff described alleged comparisons between the two songs' lyrics. Id. at 10. The Court denied the Motion for Ruling as it was unable to discern what relief Plaintiff sought other than a “ruling” in his favor, which was premature at such an early state of litigation. Order, ECF No. 13.
On August 5, 2022, Defendants filed the pending Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b)(6) and 8. They also moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, stating that if the Court considers matters outside the pleadings, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment. Defs.' Mot. at 2 n.1, 9. As for their Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Defendants argue that “Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege ownership in a valid copyright, as he fails to identify any copyright registration number associated with his work or to append copies of any United States Certificates of Copyright Registration.” Defs.' Mot. at 1. Next, they argue that “Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege that Defendants had access to his work,” and finally that “Plaintiff fails to allege any facts supporting a claim of substantial similarity” between the two songs. Id. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff failed to allege facts to put each Defendant on notice of the copyright infringement claim made against them, in violation of Rule 8. Id. at 14. Defendants' motion is now fully briefed before the Court.
Throughout the course of this litigation, Plaintiff has sent numerous inappropriate emails to Defendants' counsels. On June 9, 2022, Defendants filed an [8] Emergency Motion for Protective Order indicating that “Plaintiff sent an email communication that appears to threaten the undersigned counsel and their families” as well as other threatening emails, including one suggesting that Defendants' counsel should be “capture[d]” and “detain[ed].” ECF No. 8, at 1, 3. Defendants asked the Court to order that Plaintiff must “stay more than 100 yards away from Defendants' and Defendants' counsels' places of business” and “stay more than 100 yards away from and have no contact with Defendant's counsel, except at judicially sanctioned events,” among other requests. Id. at 6. Although the Court found Plaintiff's emails to be inappropriate and ill-advised, the Court denied without prejudice Defendants' [8] Emergency Motion, concluding that the emails did not justify the sanctions Defendants sought in their motion. Order at 1-2, ECF No. 10. In its order, the Court reminded Plaintiff of his duty to behave civilly and respectfully to opposing counsel. Id. at 2. The Court also stated that “[i]n the event that additional inappropriate communications and/or conduct are brought to the Court's attention, the Court may impose sanctions--including, if appropriate, termination of this case.” Id.
As exhibits to their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants attached additional emails from Plaintiff to Defendants' counsels. ECF No. 43-2. These emails include remarks such as “I could beat your F*%#ing a*%,” sexually lewd and inappropriate language, and references to Defendants “getting KILLED metaphorically or realistically” and that Plaintiff “could... slow roast your defendants alive!”; Plaintiff also calls Defendants' counsels “illegitimate psycho,” “you manipulated moronic retard monkey,” and “you sickening virus”. Id. at 1-2, 4.
Plaintiff has also repeatedly attempted to submit communications to this Court, including ex parte letters addressed directly to Judge Kollar-Kotelly. The Court first denied leave to file letters from Plaintiff on June 10, 2022. On June 14, 2022, the Court pointed Plaintiff's attention to Local Civil Rule 5.1(a), which prohibits “correspondence. directed by [a] part[y]. to a judge.” Order, ECF No. 13. The Court ordered that “absent extraordinary circumstances, Plaintiff shall NOT be permitted to file any other documents in this case unless ordered to do so by the Court.” Id. (emphasis in original). Between that date and July 11, 2022, Plaintiff submitted approximately twenty additional letters to the Clerk's Office addressed to the Court. Order, ECF No. 17. These filings contained inappropriate language and information unrelated to the matter before the Court. Id. On July 13, 2022, the Court issued an order indicating that Id. (emphasis in original). Despite the Court's warnings, Plaintiff has sent at least forty-nine letters to the Court. These letters, most of which are addressed directly to Judge Kollar-Kotelly, include references to unrelated topics such as Roe v. Wade, COVID-19 and Bill Gates, and the U.S. government, as well as obscene and angry language. The most recent of these letters included a sexually lewd photograph and inappropriate language.
In Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Defendants ask that “the Court should exercise its inherent powers to dismiss the Complaint with prejudice in light of Plaintiff's repeated, inappropriate communications with the Court and Defendants' counsel.” Defs.' Mot. at 16.
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a complaint on the grounds that it “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). “[A] complaint [does not] suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial